top of page
Writer's pictureJasper Goddard

The Rhetoric Dilemma



The U.S. Presidential election is upon us, and the world is questioning how voters could possibly give their backing, again, to Donald Trump despite his role in the 2021 Capitol attack and the inflammatory language he and his supporters routinely bandy about. Whether it be his attacks on his political enemies as “vermin” who he will “root out”, his claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the United States, or his recent musings on how Liz Cheney would feel when “the guns are trained on her face,” Trump has built his political persona on employing bilious rhetoric.


When Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, he tore up the political scene by ignoring conventions around political correctness to attack the so-called political and media establishments. This caught them off-guard, Trump being a longstanding member of every establishment on American soil, while simultaneously drawing in support from a large section of the electorate who felt fed up and left behind by politics. But it also signalled a shift in political discourse which has since seeped into other parts of the world. In the world of Trumpian rhetoric, anything goes and respect for one’s opponent is not required.


It is this divergence in attitude towards the language used by each candidate that represents the single biggest difference between Trump and Kamala Harris voters. Of course, policy differences will also influence how individuals vote, particularly the differences on abortion rights and climate change. But the election campaign has been dominated by the contrast in rhetoric between the two sides, with the Harris campaign exuding positivity, while Trump’s rallies have featured constant attacks on those he deems at fault for America's woes. 


For some, language matters. Politics will always involve verbal jousting as one side tries to better the other and it is sometimes a fine line between what is and is not acceptable. But for those who place an importance on a form of respectability in politics, once the language used veers into hateful and violent rhetoric, this is unacceptable. 


However, for others, verbal attacks are part of the game and what is said is, ultimately, largely irrelevant. There are those who, while not explicitly endorsing Trumpian rhetoric, are willing to overlook it as they place less importance on what politicians say. For them, it is about the substance of policy decisions. Actions, not words, are what matter.


This has its dangers. The rise of Trump has coincided with a surge in far-right populism across Europe, where politicians have bought into Trump’s attacks on immigrants and nationalist tropes. 


And as this rhetoric is increasingly used it begins to become normalised. A recent study by Nikita Savin and Daniel Treisman of the University of California analysed nine years of Trump’s political speeches and found that his violent rhetoric has increased dramatically. The percentage of words associated with violence increased from around 0.6% in 2016 to 1.6% in 2024. During this period we have also seen the murder of two British MPs, former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and the attempted assassinations of Jair Bolsonaro, Slovakia PM Robert Fico and Trump himself. Politicians must remember that words do matter. 


Although 99% of people will not act upon the aggressive language used by a political figure, some will see it as vindication to violent action and act upon it. A political realm which places no restraint on such language will see the degradation of public life, with increased polarisation and risk of violence. 


Over the next few days, we’ll likely know whether Trump has returned to the White House or finally been defeated. If it is the latter, it is the duty of whoever takes his place as the next Republican nominee to ensure this is also the end of Trumpian rhetoric and chart a course back to a calmer, more constructive political discourse. The world looks to the U.S. for better or worse, it is imperative they set the standard in terms of respectability and language in an increasingly politically polarised world.



Image: Flickr/Gage Skidmore.

No image changes made.

Comments


bottom of page